[Bug fortran/87127] External function not recognised from within an associate block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87127 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9ccf471f8cc7341984f6613247f01d8ecfcb7ad5 commit r12-9295-g9ccf471f8cc7341984f6613247f01d8ecfcb7ad5 Author: Paul Thomas Date

[Bug fortran/87127] External function not recognised from within an associate block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87127 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5889c7bd46a45dc07ffb77ec0d698e18e0b99840 commit r13-6758-g5889c7bd46a45dc07ffb77ec0d698e18e0b99840 Author: Paul Thomas Date: Mon M

[Bug target/106721] Error: invalid character '<' in mnemonic since r13-2122-g86c0d98620ee3a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106721 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||n.deshmukh at samsung dot com --- Comme

[Bug c++/109204] Compiler emits unknows assembly instruction with -O3 level

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109204 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/109204] New: Compiler emits unknows assembly instruction with -O3 level

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109204 Bug ID: 109204 Summary: Compiler emits unknows assembly instruction with -O3 level Product: gcc Version: 12.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/109174] incorrect intrinsic signature for AVX-512 srai*

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109174 --- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu --- Yes, it should be changed to align with intrinsic guide.

[Bug target/109173] incorrect intrinsic signature for _mm_srai_epi64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109173 --- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Jan Wassenberg from comment #5) > Thanks, Mathieu, for raising this. > > Note that clang has changed their intrinsic to require an unsigned arg: > https://github.com/google/highway/commit/ > 45b

[Bug bootstrap/109188] Building genmodes under MinGW-W64/MSYS2 fails due to undefined HOST_EXTRA_OBJS_SYMBOL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109188 --- Comment #12 from Jan Dubiec --- Yes, there is such a snippet in gcc/Makefile.in but I have completely no idea what you mean.

[Bug bootstrap/109188] Building genmodes under MinGW-W64/MSYS2 fails due to undefined HOST_EXTRA_OBJS_SYMBOL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109188 --- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski --- >From Makefile.in: # per-language makefile fragments -include $(LANG_MAKEFRAGS) # target and host overrides must follow the per-language makefile fragments # so they can override or augment language-specif

[Bug bootstrap/109188] Building genmodes under MinGW-W64/MSYS2 fails due to undefined HOST_EXTRA_OBJS_SYMBOL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109188 --- Comment #10 from Jan Dubiec --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9) > Can you change $(COMPILERS) to cc1 in gcc/config/i386/x-mingw32-utf8 and see > if that helps? I have changed it and I can confirm that genmodes.exe has been succes

[Bug bootstrap/109188] Building genmodes under MinGW-W64/MSYS2 fails due to undefined HOST_EXTRA_OBJS_SYMBOL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109188 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- Can you change $(COMPILERS) to cc1 in gcc/config/i386/x-mingw32-utf8 and see if that helps? I am trying to see if the variable is not being defined before including the make file fragment or not.

[Bug bootstrap/109188] Building genmodes under MinGW-W64/MSYS2 fails due to undefined HOST_EXTRA_OBJS_SYMBOL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109188 --- Comment #8 from Jan Dubiec --- Output of another important command: $ uname -a MINGW64_NT-10.0-19045 jdxpc 3.4.6.x86_64 2023-02-15 18:03 UTC x86_64 Msys

[Bug bootstrap/109188] Building genmodes under MinGW-W64/MSYS2 fails due to undefined HOST_EXTRA_OBJS_SYMBOL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109188 --- Comment #7 from Jan Dubiec --- Make version is 4.4.1 as comment #2 shows. Usually I call make from my bash build script using "make 2>&1 | tee buildlog-gcc.txt", but I tried to build native compiler by simply calling "make" from the bash com

[Bug bootstrap/109188] Building genmodes under MinGW-W64/MSYS2 fails due to undefined HOST_EXTRA_OBJS_SYMBOL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109188 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- What version of make are you using? "make -v" Only cc1, cc1plus, etc. should be getting that option. Can youbprovide the output of "env" too? How are you invoking make?

[Bug bootstrap/109188] Building genmodes under MinGW-W64/MSYS2 fails due to undefined HOST_EXTRA_OBJS_SYMBOL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109188 --- Comment #5 from Jan Dubiec --- I forgot to mention it in the first message – at least h8300-elf and mips-elf are also affected. I have just even tried to build native compiler and, strangely, it has the same issue.

[Bug rtl-optimization/109187] [13 Regression] ICE: qsort checking failed: qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output: 1736258160 at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109187 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.0 Keywords|

[Bug debug/109161] Bad CTF generated for stub in function scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109161 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- >The hang is because the compiler spits incorrect CTF. Did you also file a binutils bug for the objdump issue? It seems like it should not hang for invalid input ...

[Bug libstdc++/106477] With -fno-exception operator new(nothrow) aborts instead of returning null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106477 Nikita Kniazev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nok.raven at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/93016] erroneous new (nothrow_t) still throws an exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93016 Nikita Kniazev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nok.raven at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug libstdc++/109203] sort(zip(v1, v2)) fails to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109203 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Note for this to work with LLVM's libc++, you need the following include file added: #include

[Bug libstdc++/109203] sort(zip(v1, v2)) fails to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109203 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 54707 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54707&action=edit Full testcase Next time don't just do code snippets but rather a full testcase in the comment. And don't assum

[Bug libstdc++/109203] sort(zip(v1, v2)) fails to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109203 --- Comment #1 from Dvir Yitzchaki --- it works when zipping more than 2 ranges

[Bug libstdc++/109203] New: sort(zip(v1, v2)) fails to compile

++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: dvirtz at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- ``` std::vector vi; std::vector vs; ranges::sort(views::zip(vi, vs)); ``` results in ``` /opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20230319/include/c++/13.0.1/bits/ranges_algo.h

[Bug fortran/108434] [12/13 Regression] ICE in class_allocatable, at fortran/expr.cc:5000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108434 --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #6) > There is another potential issue (see comment#1) which might be related > to this one or not. Keeping this PR open until the finalization work > reaches the

[Bug fortran/109186] nearest(huge(x),-1.0_kind(x)) half of correct value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109186 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot gnu

[Bug fortran/109186] nearest(huge(x),-1.0_kind(x)) half of correct value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109186 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The following patch fixes this: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc b/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc index 20ea38e0007..35ae637a483 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc +++ b/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc @@

[Bug fortran/85877] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2449

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85877 --- Comment #12 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5426ab34643d9e6502f3ee572891a03471fa33ed commit r13-6756-g5426ab34643d9e6502f3ee572891a03471fa33ed Author: Harald Anlauf Date: F

[Bug fortran/109186] nearest(huge(x),-1.0_kind(x)) half of correct value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109186 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug sanitizer/109198] ASAN False-positive stack-buffer-overflow on pthread_join with a static buffer over 256 bytes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109198 --- Comment #2 from dimitri at ouroboros dot rocks --- Sorry, I didn't spot that duplicate. Thanks.

[Bug tree-optimization/109192] [13 Regression] timeout with -O3 -fno-var-tracking since r13-5579

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109192 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|timeout with -O3|[13 Regression] timeout

[Bug c++/95686] undefined reference to static local variable within inline function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95686 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > Note this code ICEs with LTO turned on also. The ICE is: during IPA pass: modref rls6o5bx.cpp:10:1: internal compiler error: in get_partitioning_class, at symta

[Bug c++/95686] undefined reference to static local variable within inline function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95686 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- Note the testcase is very similar to clang's test/SemaTemplate/instantiate-static-local.cpp testcase.

[Bug c++/109185] ICE in get_partitioning_class, at symtab.cc:2096

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109185 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug c++/95686] undefined reference to static local variable within inline function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95686 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 109185 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/109202] gfortran -M outputs dependency cycle

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109202 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- gnu make gives: make: Circular circle.mod <- circle.mod dependency dropped. But otherwise ignores it ...

[Bug bootstrap/109188] Building genmodes under MinGW-W64/MSYS2 fails due to undefined HOST_EXTRA_OBJS_SYMBOL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109188 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Does this only happen with a cross to arm or do you know if other targets are effected?

[Bug fortran/109202] New: gfortran -M outputs dependency cycle

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109202 Bug ID: 109202 Summary: gfortran -M outputs dependency cycle Product: gcc Version: 12.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug bootstrap/109188] Building genmodes under MinGW-W64/MSYS2 fails due to undefined HOST_EXTRA_OBJS_SYMBOL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109188 --- Comment #3 from Jan Dubiec --- I have just finished painful "git bisect" and found the offending commit: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=d11e088210a551235d3937f867ee1c8b19d02290. However I do not know where the bug is.

[Bug middle-end/109192] timeout with -O3 -fno-var-tracking ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109192 David Binderman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amacleod at redhat dot com --- Commen

[Bug middle-end/109192] timeout with -O3 -fno-var-tracking ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109192 --- Comment #2 from David Binderman --- Range now downto g:a0c2ea3ee6e47f40 .. g:2db1fd76ebaa6da8, which is 19 commits.

[Bug sanitizer/109198] ASAN False-positive stack-buffer-overflow on pthread_join with a static buffer over 256 bytes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109198 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug sanitizer/101476] AddressSanitizer check failed, points out a (potentially) non-existing stack error and pthread_cancel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101476 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dimitri at ouroboros dot rocks --- Comm

[Bug middle-end/109192] timeout with -O3 -fno-var-tracking ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109192 --- Comment #1 from David Binderman --- Current git range seems to be g:af22b54af53c0f2a .. g:f3b1af49702a3d19, which is 75 commits.

[Bug analyzer/109201] New: GCC Static Analyzer does not generate a div-by-zero warning for the `if ((d.b = 1) / f)` where `f` is 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109201 Bug ID: 109201 Summary: GCC Static Analyzer does not generate a div-by-zero warning for the `if ((d.b = 1) / f)` where `f` is 0 Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONF

[Bug analyzer/109200] New: GCC Static Analyzer does not generate a div-by-zero warning for the `0 <= (f = 0) % e.b` where `e.b == 0`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109200 Bug ID: 109200 Summary: GCC Static Analyzer does not generate a div-by-zero warning for the `0 <= (f = 0) % e.b` where `e.b == 0` Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCO

gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109199 Bug ID: 109199 Summary: GCC Static Analyzer evaluates `__analyzer_evalc) + 1) == ((&b[0]) + 1)))` to be FLASE with the fact `c == &b[0]` Product: gcc Version

[Bug c/109198] New: ASAN False-positive stack-buffer-overflow on pthread_join with a static buffer over 256 bytes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109198 Bug ID: 109198 Summary: ASAN False-positive stack-buffer-overflow on pthread_join with a static buffer over 256 bytes Product: gcc Version: 12.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/109197] New: GCC Static Analyzer does not kown `c || b.d` is false with the fact that `c=0` and `b.d=0`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109197 Bug ID: 109197 Summary: GCC Static Analyzer does not kown `c || b.d` is false with the fact that `c=0` and `b.d=0` Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/109196] New: GSA evaluates `__analyzer_eval(((a())<(0))||((a())==(0)));` to be TRUE, but function `a()` is a unknown function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109196 Bug ID: 109196 Summary: GSA evaluates `__analyzer_eval(((a())<(0))||((a())==(0)));` to be TRUE, but function `a()` is a unknown function Product: gcc Version: 13

[Bug target/109166] Built-in __atomic_test_and_set does not seem to be atomic on ARMv4T

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109166 --- Comment #5 from Jan Dubiec --- I read that thread a few days ago and I understand concerns regarding SWP, in particular on ARMv6 which has made SWP obsolete (AFAIR it is optional on ARMv6-A/R, ARMv6-M has neither SWP nor LDREX/STREX). Howeve

[Bug analyzer/109195] New: GCC Static Analyzer does not know "a+0 <= b+1" in the true branch of if (a <= b), but knows "a+0 < b+1".

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109195 Bug ID: 109195 Summary: GCC Static Analyzer does not know "a+0 <= b+1" in the true branch of if (a <= b), but knows "a+0 < b+1". Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCON

[Bug analyzer/109194] New: GCC Static Analyzer does not know "a+3 > b+1" in the true branch of "if (a > b) ", but it knows "a+2 > b+1"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109194 Bug ID: 109194 Summary: GCC Static Analyzer does not know "a+3 > b+1" in the true branch of "if (a > b) ", but it knows "a+2 > b+1" Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: U

[Bug analyzer/109193] GCC Static Analyzer does not know "1-a > 0-b" in the true branch of "if (a < b && 0 < a) "

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109193 --- Comment #1 from Geoffrey --- It does not know "b > 0" under the if condition that "a>0 && b > a" either. See it live: https://godbolt.org/z/1aGds8aTq

[Bug analyzer/109193] New: GCC Static Analyzer does not know 1-a > 0-b" in the true branch of "if (a < b && 0 < a) "

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109193 Bug ID: 109193 Summary: GCC Static Analyzer does not know 1-a > 0-b" in the true branch of "if (a < b && 0 < a) " Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug bootstrap/109188] Building genmodes under MinGW-W64/MSYS2 fails due to undefined HOST_EXTRA_OBJS_SYMBOL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109188 --- Comment #2 from Jan Dubiec --- jdx@jdxpc MINGW64 /d/works/xcomp $ make --version GNU Make 4.4.1 Built for x86_64-pc-msys Copyright (C) 1988-2023 Free Software Foundation, Inc. License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later

[Bug bootstrap/109188] Building genmodes under MinGW-W64/MSYS2 fails due to undefined HOST_EXTRA_OBJS_SYMBOL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109188 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- >From config/i386/x-mingw32-utf8: $(COMPILERS) : override LDFLAGS += -Wl,--require-defined=HOST_EXTRA_OBJS_SYMBOL So LDFLAGS should have been only overridden for COMPILERS target. What make version are you

[Bug libstdc++/107852] [12 Regression] Spurious warnings stringop-overflow and array-bounds copying data as bytes into vector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107852 Dvir Yitzchaki changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dvirtz at gmail dot com --- Comment #1

[Bug target/109166] Built-in __atomic_test_and_set does not seem to be atomic on ARMv4T

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109166 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Read that thread I pointed to.

[Bug c/109192] New: timeout with -g -O3 -fno-var-tracking ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109192 Bug ID: 109192 Summary: timeout with -g -O3 -fno-var-tracking ? Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug analyzer/109191] New: GCC static analyzer does not warning `*b = 1` where `b` is 1.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109191 Bug ID: 109191 Summary: GCC static analyzer does not warning `*b = 1` where `b` is 1. Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug other/109189] Format string warnings in gcc/config/h8300/h8300.cc under MigW-W64/MSYS2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109189 --- Comment #1 from Jan Dubiec --- BTW, it would be nice if someone experienced could inspect lines 1547–1553, 1572–1578 and 1751–1757 in that file. These ranges contain code which looks like this: case CONST_DOUBLE: {

[Bug analyzer/109190] New: GCC Static Analyzer cannot handle the initialization of an array with a for loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109190 Bug ID: 109190 Summary: GCC Static Analyzer cannot handle the initialization of an array with a for loop Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severit

[Bug other/109189] New: Format string warnings in gcc/config/h8300/h8300.cc under MigW-W64/MSYS2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109189 Bug ID: 109189 Summary: Format string warnings in gcc/config/h8300/h8300.cc under MigW-W64/MSYS2 Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: inter

[Bug fortran/109186] nearest(huge(x),-1.0_kind(x)) half of correct value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109186 --- Comment #2 from john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz --- The results I expected were that nearest(huge(sp1),-sp1) would be near huge(sp1)/(1+epsilon(sp1)), nearest(huge(dp1),-dp1) would be near huge(dp1)/(1+epsilon(dp1)), nearest(huge(ep1),-ep1) wou

[Bug c/109188] New: Building genmodes under MinGW-W64/MSYS2 fails due to undefined HOST_EXTRA_OBJS_SYMBOL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109188 Bug ID: 109188 Summary: Building genmodes under MinGW-W64/MSYS2 fails due to undefined HOST_EXTRA_OBJS_SYMBOL Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Se

[Bug target/109166] Built-in __atomic_test_and_set does not seem to be atomic on ARMv4T

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109166 --- Comment #3 from Jan Dubiec --- I do not get what "but that requires more" means in this context. Lets assume that two threads test and set the same memory location which initial value is 0 ("unlocked"/"false"). Now, when the first thread ge